27 Jun 2017

Maritime Issues: Proactive Initiatives

Vijay Sakhuja


During the last three years since the incumbent government led by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power, ‘matters maritime’ have gained ascendency, clearly suggesting that India’s political and ruling elite have shed the proverbial ‘maritime blindness’. New Delhi has taken multitude of proactive initiatives at the national and international levels that straddle political, economic, security, technological and social domains. These initiatives have been driven by a number of competing political priorities, rising economic interests and changing security dynamics of India vis-a-vis the international order. Among these, at least three issues merit attention: (a) maritime security; (b) international relations; and (c) economic development. Significantly, these form the core of a national maritime strategy, a foreign policy pivoting on the oceans, and the critical need to harness the resource potential of the seas for economic growth. 

Besides, a number of other interconnected maritime issues such as climate change; rise of sea levels; and the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 in which Goal 14 titled “Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development” including its sub-goals which address marine pollution, protection of marine and coastal ecosystems, issues of ocean acidification, overfishing and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, etc. figure in various national programmes, joint statements with friendly nations, and are actively promoted by the government as issues of ‘common interest’ or ‘matters of concern’in multilateral forums.

Maritime Security Gains Precedence 
Among the many threats and challenges emanating ‘from’ or ‘on’ the seas, Prime Minister Modi has flagged the threat of sea-borne terror and piracy as two major issues confronting the international community. India’s security and maritime interests are closely linked, and sea based terrorism figures prominently in the national security calculus. The 2008 Mumbai terror attacks loom large in the minds of the government and policymakers have supported efforts to ensure robust coastal security apparatus. 

Likewise, sea piracy off the Somali coast has been an issue of international concern and the Modi government has exhibited a strong commitment by deploying the Indian Navy in the Gulf of Aden to ensure that the sea lines of communications passing through the Indian Ocean are safe. 

At another level, a number of maritime challenges confront India - the changing balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region; and the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative which includes the 21st century Maritime Silk Road (MSR) and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Furthermore, Chinese port access to Gwadar in Pakistan, Colombo in Sri Lanka, Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, militarisation in South China Sea including issues of freedom of navigation, and proliferation of naval platforms in the Indian Ocean have attracted the attention of the Indian government.

Seas as Facilitators of Foreign Policy 
At the foreign policy level, there is strong evidence of the government’s desire to expand maritime security cooperation with neighbours and island states in the Indian Ocean through capacity building. This is built on a strong belief that such an approach can potentially lower the possibility of cataclysmic incidents and accidents at sea. This issue gains greater salience given that the scale and complexity of maritime challenges in the global commons are enormous and ‘international stability cannot be the preserve of single nation’. The government is of the view that all seafaring nations and their maritime security agencies must work collectively to ensure safe and secure commerce on the seas as a shared goal and responsibility. In this context, the government has encouraged the Indian Navy and other maritime enforce agencies such as the Coast Guard to build ‘bridges’ with friendly nations, and develop norms for cooperation with the aim of work together with likeminded forces. 

The Modi government has formulated a proactive foreign policy which encourages capacity building of coastal states such as Kenya and Tanzania and island countries (Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles and Sri Lanka) that lack necessary military wherewithal and therefore remain vulnerable to threats and challenges. The government has proactively engaged major and smaller maritime powers and India has emerged as a formidable and reliable maritime partner. New Delhi has signed a number of bilateral maritime cooperation agreements for capacity building including MoUs which entail joint patrolling and conducting surveillance of Exclusive Economic Zones of smaller nations and support their need for maritime domain awareness through information sharing. Also, the Indian government has supported multilateral fora such as the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) and the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) in the Indian Ocean and the ASEAN led East Asia Summit (EAS), ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM) Plus and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) that address common maritime security issues and call upon member states to work together to address non-traditional security threats and challenges at sea. 

Harnessing Oceans for Economic Development 
Prime Minister Modi also announced his vision for the seas through ‘sagar’, which means ‘ocean’ and stands for 'Security and Growth for All in the Region'. In this context, Blue Economy has resonated with the government and Prime Minister Modi sees the oceans as catalyst for economic growth. He has likened the Blue Economy as the ‘Chakra’ (wheel) in the Indian national flag and has observed that development of coastal areas and island territories are the “new pillars of economic activity.” This has led to the national plan for ‘port led’ development projects that link the hinterland with coastal areas.

In essence, the Modi government has availed the unique opportunity to highlight the role of the oceans and seas in national and international affairs. It has invested huge politico-diplomatic, economic and security capital to showcase to the world the maritime prowess of India and its commitment to support a rule based order on the oceans that has the potential to unite the international community.

26 Jun 2017

United Nations Young Professionals Program (YPP) 2017

Application Deadline: 22nd August 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Each year, countries that are un- or under-represented in the United Nations, are invited to take part in the Young Professionals Programme. See list below
To Be Taken At (Country): Various UN Duty stations
Fields of Study: Depending on the staffing needs of the United Nations, applicants are invited to apply for different exam subjects. Descriptions of responsibilities, expected competencies and education requirements differ depending on the area.
Job Networks: YPP 2017 will cover 3 different job networks:
  • Political, Peace, and Humanitarian Network (POLNET)
  • Management and Administration Network (MAGNET)
  • Public Information and Conference Management Network (INFONET)
About the Award: The Young Professionals Programme (YPP) is a recruitment initiative for talented, highly qualified professionals to start a career as an international civil servant with the United Nations Secretariat. It consists of an entrance examination and professional development programmes once successful candidates start their career with the UN.
The YPP examination is held once a year and is open to nationals of countries participating in the annual recruitment exercise. The list of participating countries is published annually and varies from year to year.
Type: Internships/Job
Eligibility: Interested candidates
  • must have the nationality of a participating country.
  • must hold at least a first-level university degree relevant for the exam subject you are applying for.
  • must be 32 or younger in the year of the examination.
  • must be fluent in either English or French.
Staff members of the United Nations Secretariat who work within the General Service and other related categories and aspire to a career within the Professional and higher categories, are encouraged to apply.
Selection Criteria: 
  • Your application will be screened to determine if you are eligible for the examination in the exam subject you applied for.
  • If more than 40 applicants from the same country apply for the same exam area, those applicants will be further screened and ranked by a Human Resources Officer according to points given for the following additional qualifications: highest level of education completed, knowledge of official UN languages, and relevant work experience.
  • Please be aware that many potential applicants do not pass the screening stage due to incomplete or inaccurate applications.
  • If your application was successful, you will be informed that you are convoked to the examination.
  • If determined that you are not eligible to apply or if your application was unsuccessful, you will be informed that you have not been convoked to the examination.
  • You will be able to check the status of your application by typing your application number in the search section on the Convocation status & Examination centre page (See link in Application Process in Program Webpage Link below).
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: 
  • Salary and Post adjustments
  • Rental subsidy if newly arrived at the duty station your rent represents too high proportion of the total remuneration.
  • Dependency allowances if you have an eligible dependent spouse and/or child(ren).
  • Under certain conditions an education grant if you have eligible children in school.
  • Travel and shipping expenses when you are moving from one duty station to another.
  • Assignment grant to assist you in meeting initial extraordinary costs when arriving at or relocating to a new duty station.
  • At some duty stations, a hardship allowance linked to living and working conditions is paid and where there are restrictions on bringing family members, a non-family hardship allowance is also paid.
  • Hazard pay and rest and recuperation break when you serve in locations where the conditions are particularly hazardous, stressful and difficult.
  • Many more benefits.
Duration of Program: 2 years. After two years and subject to satisfactory performance, successful candidates may be granted a continuing contract.
Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahrain, Belarus, Belize, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Laos, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Mozambique, Nauru, Norway, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, United States, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam
How to Apply: See in Program Webpage (Link below)
Award Providers: The United Nations (UN)
Important Notes: THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE AT ANY STAGE OF THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS (APPLICATION, INTERVIEW MEETING, PROCESSING, OR TRAINING). THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH INFORMATION ON APPLICANTS’ BANK ACCOUNTS.

Mellon Mays Predoctoral Research Grants 2017 for Doctoral Students

Application Deadline: 1st November 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Fields of Study: Anthropology and Archaeology, Area/Cultural/Ethnic/Gender Studies, Art History, Classics, Computer Science, Geography and Population Studies, Earth/Environmental/Geological Science and Ecology, English, Film, Cinema and Media Studies (theoretical focus), Foreign Languages and Literatures, History, Linguistics, Literature, Mathematics, Musicology and Ethnomusicology, Oceanographic/Marine/Atmospheric/Planetary Science, Performance Studies (theoretical focus), Philosophy and Political Theory, Physics and Astronomy, Religion and Theology, Sociology, Theater (non-performance focus), Interdisciplinary Studies.
Fellows who enter Ph.D. programs in a field not listed above must formally petition for recognition of the graduate program.
About the Award: The Mellon Mays Graduate Initiatives Program aims to address, over time, the problem of underrepresentation in the academy at the level of college and university faculties. Funded by grants from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the program provides support for scholars from all backgrounds with a demonstrated commitment to this goal. To date, over 600 fellows have received doctoral degrees and nearly 700 fellows are in Ph.D. programs.
The Graduate Initiatives Program builds upon the Mellon Mays Undergraduate Fellowship Program (MMUF) by supporting MMUF fellows from the early stages of graduate school to the post-Ph.D. years. It is only open to Ph.D. students who were selected as Mellon Mays Undergraduate Fellows. Fellows must enroll in doctoral programs within 39 months of receiving their undergraduate degrees, and they must be in one of the fields listed above.
The Graduate Initiatives Program offers three predoctoral grant opportunities:
  1. the Graduate Studies Enhancement Grant (GSE),
  2. the Predoctoral Research Development Grant (PRD), and
  3. the Dissertation Completion Grant (DCG).
Graduate Studies Enhancement (GSE) Grant
  • Fellows must be in their second to fifth years of graduate school; students at South African universities are eligible to apply in the first year of their Master’s programs
  • Fellows that have begun the sixth year of graduate study are not eligible
  • Available for up to $1,500 per academic year
  • May be received up to four times
  • Funds travel, equipment, books, journal subscriptions, and software
Predoctoral Research Development (PRD) Grant
  • Fellows must be in their second to fifth years of graduate school; students at South African universities are eligible to apply in the first year of their Master’s programs
  • Fellows that have begun the sixth year of graduate study are not eligible
  • Available for up to $3,000 once during a fellow’s graduate school career
  • Funds small-scale, preliminary research and other activities
  • Requires a letter of support from an adviser or committee member
Dissertation Completion Grant (DCG)
  • Fellows must be in their seventh year or beyond and must provide a feasible timeline for completion of the dissertation within 12 months
  •  Available for up to $2,500 once during a fellow’s graduate school career
  • Funds travel, equipment, books, journal subscriptions, and software that support the completion of the dissertation
  • Requires a summary report six months after receipt of the grant
  • A competitive award based on the feasibility of timely completion
  • Fellows may not have participated in the Preparing for the Professoriate Seminar
Type: Grants
Eligibility: 
  • Fellows may apply for one grant per year
  • Applicants must be Mellon fellows enrolled in a doctoral program in an eligible field of study
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: 
  • Each fellow may receive a maximum of $5,000 in GSE and PRD funds; DCG funds do not apply toward this total
  • The grants cannot be used for tuition and fees or living expenses
  • Grants are disbursed on a first-come, first-served basis
How to Apply: Click here to apply!
Award Provider: Andrew W. Mellon Foundation

Wadsworth African Fellowships for PhD Anthropology in South African Universities 2017

Application Deadline: 15th December 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
To Be Taken At (Country): South Africa
Eligible Field of Study: Anthropology
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  1. The Wadsworth African Fellowship is intended for young African scholars who may not otherwise be able to pursue a doctoral degree in anthropology. Normally, applicants will be under 35 years of age at the time they begin their fellowship. They must be citizens and residents of an African country at the time of application. They must also be members of an underrepresented group in academic anthropology/archaeology.
  2. Applicants must be prepared to demonstrate their reasons for choosing their Host Institution (the institution where they plan to study). Currently applications to the University of Witwatersrand and the University of Cape Town are given priority.
  3. A Host Institution can have only two active Wadsworth African fellows. Because anthropology can be taught in a variety of departments (Social Anthropology, Archaeology, Anatomy, etc.) it is expected that there will normally be only one active fellow per department at any time.
  4. Applicants may have already begun their training for the doctoral degree at a South African university but they must demonstrate why their funding circumstances have changed and why they now do not have sufficient funding to complete their degree.
  5. Students who have advanced beyond their first year of doctoral studies/training are not eligible to apply.
  6. At the time they submit their application, candidates must have an application for doctoral admission pending at a South African institution that will provide training.
  7. The applicant must have a Host Sponsor, or supervisor, who is a member of the South African institution at which the candidate plans to pursue training. The Host Sponsor must be willing to assume responsibility for overseeing the candidate’s training. A Host Sponsor cannot sponsor more than one applicant per funding season.
  8. The applicant must have a Home Sponsor who is a member of the institution at which the applicant received his or her prior degree/s. The Home Sponsor must be prepared to supply a letter of reference for the applicant. In some cases the Host Institution may be the same institution where the applicant received his or her prior degree/s. If this situation applies, the Home Sponsor should be the Head of a relevant department at the Host Institution or another member of the academic staff who is familiar with the applicant, but who will not be acting as the Host Sponsor.
  9. Applicants may submit only one application per funding season. They may not apply through two or more Host Institutions/Departments at the same time.
  10. If the Foundation receives more than one application for a single South African department, the Foundation will contact that department to have them prioritize their applicants for potential funding.
  11. Applications exclusively seeking support for fieldwork expenses and/or dissertation write-up are not accepted. Applicants should apply to the Dissertation Fieldwork Grant program for fieldwork expenses. The Foundation only funds dissertation write-up for Wadsworth African Fellows who have received funding for training purposes from the Wenner-Gren Foundation prior to undertaking their fieldwork.
  12. Applicants must be able to demonstrate that they have sufficient funds in addition to the Wadsworth African Fellowship to complete their training at the Host Institution.
  13. If a Wadsworth African Fellowship is awarded, the applicant must agree to comply with the Requirements and Conditions of the Wadsworth African Fellowship.
Selection Criteria: 
  1. The Foundation is looking for applicants who are talented scholars, who may not otherwise be able to pursue a doctoral degree and who show potential for developing the field of anthropology in their home countries. Priority will be given to applicants from underrepresented groups in academic anthropology.
  2. Applicants must show evidence of academic excellence in their prior training in anthropology or a related discipline.
  3. Applicants should make a convincing case for choosing the Host Institution and the program of training they will receive at the Host Institution.
  4. The Foundation places considerable importance on the reference from the Host Sponsor. Applicants are encouraged to make personal contact with the Host Sponsor prior to applying for the Wadsworth African Fellowship and to develop with that sponsor an appropriate program of training and study leading to the doctoral degree.
  5. Priority is given to applicants with well-articulated training and research goals. It is also important to demonstrate a good fit between the Host Institution, Host Sponsor, and the applicant’s research goals.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: The annual fellowship is $17,500 and can be used towards travel, living expenses, tuition, student fees, insurance, books, research expenses, and any other relevant categories of expenditure while studying at the Host institution. A separate application can be made for an additional year of funding to support dissertation write-up.
Duration of Program:  The fellowship is renewable for up to two additional years upon successful completion of each preceding year’s study.
How to Apply: Final decisions are made by January 15. Application materials are available 3 months before the application deadline. Applicants must use the most recent application form. They must also submit their application materials using the Foundation’s online submission procedure as well as send two printed copies to the Foundation by regular mail. See the link to ‘Application Procedures’ below for more information.
Award Providers: Wenner-Gren Foundation

Tritium: Toxic Tip of the Nuclear Iceberg

JOSEPH MANGANO

Tritium has become a symbol for why nuclear power is dangerous.
In June 2011, an AP investigation found leaks of this radioactive chemical from old and corroded pipes beneath 48 of 65 U.S. nuclear plants.  National coverage followed, just three months since the meltdown at Fukushima, Japan.  Leaks entered groundwater (up to hundreds of times above the federal limit), and sometimes drinking wells and aquifers.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulators had not notified the public of this threat.  This lax attitude shows how government is just a dupe for the nuclear industry it supposedly regulates.  “The public health and safety impact of this is next to zero,” proclaimed industry spokesperson Tony Pietrangelo – with no supporting evidence.
Tritium again hit the front page in February 2016, when the Indian Point plant north of New York City shut down.  Entergy, which owns Indian Point, announced large amounts of tritium-laced water had entered groundwater, after an out of service sump pump allowed seepage.  Three monitoring wells had very high levels of tritium; one had 650 times above normal level near the plant, and up to 2,500,000 times above natural levels.
Reaction was instant.  New York Governor Andrew Cuomo called for a thorough investigation of the aging plant, calling the leaks “extremely disconcerting.”  Reports emerged showing tritium exceeded federal limits in 2009 and 2014.  Entergy admitted that the toxic water eventually enters the Hudson River, to damage and kill fish and larvae.  But the plant stays open.
Tritium is one of hundreds of chemicals in nuclear reactors that are non-existent or found in tiny amounts in nature.  Each is toxic and causes cancer, birth defects, and other diseases.  So why the big fuss over tritium?
* Tritium remains in the body for up to 10 years before decaying and disappearing. Many of the other chemicals produced by nuclear reactors are gone much faster.
* Tritium is also an especially toxic form of radiation. A 1991 study by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory found it to be 1.5 to 5 times more damaging to the body than X-rays.
* Tritium is also relatively easy to measure in water, easier than the other chemicals that accompany it, including Strontium-90, Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and Plutonium-239.
Tritium and its radioactive buddies are the same mix of toxic chemicals from atom bomb explosions above the ground in the 1950s and 1960s.  The same cocktail that poured out of melted-down reactors like Chernobyl and Fukushima.  High tritium levels near nuclear plants mean high levels of many other forms of radioactive poison.
Extremely high levels of tritium near Indian Point raise the specter of a nuclear nightmare.  The two Indian Point reactors are 23 miles from the New York City border, 35 miles from midtown Manhattan.  About 18 million people live within 50 miles of the plant, the most in the U.S.
A meltdown would mean the greatest environmental catastrophe in history.  Evacuation would be impossible.  Hundreds of thousands would suffer and die of cancer or radiation poisoning.  Radioactivity would foul air and water for hundreds of years. New York would be uninhabitable.
A meltdown would be a catastrophe, but not the only way to cause harm near Indian Point.  Routine emissions have actually been breathed in, and consumed in food and water.  But government has only conducted one study of cancer near Indian Point, using statistics before 1985.
Official data show that the four closest counties (within 20 miles) of Indian Point have had a high rate of thyroid cancer since 2000 – about 60% above the U.S. rate, compared to 20% below in the late 1970s, just after the Indian Point reactors opened.  The thyroid gland is especially sensitive to radiation.  While toxins like tritium harm cells throughout the body, iodine particles from reactors seek out and attack only the thyroid.  The local rate of newborns with underactive thyroid glands is also high, about double the U.S. rate.
Calls for the shutdown of Indian Point have cascaded throughout the New York metropolitan area for decades.  In January 2017, Entergy, the New York State government, and the Riverkeeper environmental group announced a deal to close the plant in 2021, just four years from now.  Still, this old, corroded, and leaking plant operates, routinely adding radiation to the environment and keeping open the possibility of a catastrophic meltdown of a reactor core.
The invasion of tritium and other deadly chemicals into the environment at places like Indian Point are well documented.  The toll on local health must be taken seriously.  Six U.S. reactors have closed in the past four years, and at least three more will close by 2019.  This dangerous form of energy should be replaced with safe, renewable sources like wind and solar power.

Lies That Capitalists Tell Us

WILLIAM HAWES  &  JASON HOLLAND

While idiotic supporters of our two-party system wring their hands over the sensationalist nonsense reported by the mainstream media, we thought it might be worth touching on the most dangerous lie of all-time: capitalism. It’s an all-encompassing delusion, including: the myth of continual technological progress, the mendacious assumptions of endless economic growth, the lie that constant bombardments of media and consumer goods make us happy,  and the omissions of our involvement in the exploitation of the planet and the resources of distant, poorer nations, among other things.
We’ve taken the time to hash out some of the most pernicious mendacities we’ve come across in our (relatively) young lives, in the workplace, in our private lives, and in the media. ***
Please share these counter-arguments far and wide, in order to educate your fellow citizens, and, if necessary, to provide the intellectual beat-downs needed when arguing with pro-capitalists. So without further ado, here is our list of the most devious “Lies that Capitalists Tell Us”:
1) Wealth will “trickle down”
It’s hard to believe an economic policy that conjures images of urination could be wrong, but the idea is as bankrupt as the lower classes who have been subjected to the trickling. Less than ten people now have the financial wealth equivalent to half the planet, and the trickling seems a lot more like a mad cash-grab by the (morally bankrupt) elites. Rather than trickle down, the 1% and their lackeys have hoovered up the majority of new wealth created since the 2008 crash. After 40 years of stagnant wages in the US the people feel more shit on than trickled upon.
It’s not a mistake that the elite reap most of the profits: the capitalist system is designed this way, it always has been, and will be, until we the people find the courage to tear it down and replace it with something better.
2) I took all the risks
It can be argued the average employee takes far more risks in any job than the average person who starts a business with employees. The reason being is that the person starting a business usually has far more wealth, where most Americans can’t afford a 500 dollar emergency. Meaning if they lose a job or go without work for any stretch it means some tough decisions have to be made. A person with even a failing business cannot be fired, but the employee can be fired for almost any reason imaginable, they are operating without a net at all times.
The capitalist uses all sorts of public infrastructure to get his/her company off the ground. From everything to the roads to get you to your job, colleges, public utilities, tax breaks, electricity, etc. Even the internet itself was created from public research. Yet still, elite business owners still have the audacity, and are so full of hubris, that they believe in the hyper-individualist, macho, rugged-cowboy/pioneer façade they affect.
3) I could pay you more if there were less government regulations
Many capitalists argue that layers of government bureaucracy prevent them from paying their employees a fairer, living wage. This is a huge whopper, as our regulations (like no child labor, a minimum wage, disability and worker’s compensation, basic environmental impact studies, etc) actually provide safety against the worst type of exploitation of workers and destruction of the land by corporations. Without these minimum regulations, an age of even more outright neo-feudalism would occur, where employees could be layed-off and rehired ad-infinitum, based on downward market wage forces, at the wishes of ever-more capricious owners, management, and CEOs.
4) If you work hard, one day you can be rich like us (We live in a meritocracy)
America is not a meritocracy, and no one should think it is. There exists no tie to the intelligence of work done or the amount of it that guarantees success. Rather to be rich depends more on either being born into it, or being exceptionally good at exploiting others so one may take the bulk of the proceeds for themselves. This is the magic formula for wealth in this ever so “exceptional” land – exploit, exploit, exploit.
Inheritance & exploitation is how the rich get rich. To understand the exploitation aspect takes some understanding of how the rich function. Next to none of the super rich become that way solely by meritocracy. Their income is created through complex webs of utilizing leverage usually to extract some form of passive income. They are the rentier class or con artists, or both.
You only have to look at what the rich are dabbling in. Like Robert Mercer for instance, who made his money via “a hedge fund that makes its money by using algorithms to model and trade on the financial markets.” . Skimming money off corrupt financial markets hardly seems like a worthwhile activity that contributes anything to humanity, it’s a hustle.
Or take Bill Gates, who did some programming for a few years, poorly, and became rich by landing a series of deals with IBM initially, and then by passively making money off the share values of Microsoft. The late Steve Jobs may have been one of the more hands-on billionaires, but even he required thousands of enslaved asian hands to extract the kind profits Apple was able to make.
Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson almost certainly has organized crime links, as if owning a casino wasn’t enough of a con to begin with.
Rich DeVos became a billionaire by running a pyramid scheme most are familiar with called Amway.
The Walton family, owners of Wal-Mart, pays a median wage of 10 bucks an hour (far below a living wage), they strong arm vendors, and also rely on products made with working conditions that resemble old world slavery, while having more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans.
There’s just no way to make that kind of money without having a major market advantage and then profiteering off it. Lie, cajole, coerce, manipulate, bribe, rig, and hustle. These are the tools of the rich.
No one is worth this kind of money and everyone needs each other’s help to function, but in the minds of the rich they consider themselves the primary cogs in the machine worthy of their money for doing not much else than holding leverage over others and exploiting it.
5) This is as good as it gets (there is no alternative, TINA)
Through a process of gaslighting and double bind coercion the choices we are fed are propagandized via controlled media outlets owned and operated by elites. We are told our choices must be between the democrats or republicans, attacking the Middle East or face constant terrorism, unfettered capitalism or state run communism. We are given binary choices that lack all nuance, and nuance is the enemy of all those who seek to control and exploit. They feed us a tautology of simpleton narratives which unfortunately do exactly what they hoped, keep people dumb and biting on their red herrings.
Capitalists make it seems as if there is no alternative because they hoard all the money, have all the hired guns, and pay off teams of servile lawyers, judges, and lobbyists to write and enforce their anti-life laws. Capitalists demand “law and order” whenever their servant classes get too restless. In general, the most hardened, dogmatic capitalists exhibit bewilderment and/or disgust at genuine human emotions like joy, creativity, spontaneity, and love. Many capitalists have an unconscious death wish, and want to drag the rest of us and the mother Earth down with them.
Capitalists have stolen all the farmlands, hold all the patents to technology, and don’t pay enough to mass amounts of citizens to get out of the rat race and get back to the land, to live off of. The screws are turned a little tighter every year. If we are not done in by massive natural disasters or an economic collapse, expect a revolution to occur, hopefully a non-violent one.
6) We give back to the community
Corporations set out to create non-profits as a public relations move. They cause the problems and then put small band-aids on the gaping wounds they have directly contributed to and use the charity as a source of plausible deniability to obscure the fact that they are exactly what we think they are: greedy.
Handing out bread-crumbs after you’ve despoiled, desecrated, and bulldozed millions of hectares of valuable habitat is not fooling anyone. The elite one-percenters are the enemies of humankind and the biosphere itself.
7) The system (and economic theory) is rational and takes into account social and environmental costs
People tend to think someone somewhere is regulating things to keep us safe. They look around and see sophisticated technology, gleaming towers in the sky, and what they believe to be is a complex intelligent world. But in truth no one is running the show. The world functions as a mad cash grab driven by neo-liberal ideology. Our leaders are driven by power, fame, and money, and exhibit strong psychopathic, sociopathic, and narcissistic traits.
The problems of modern industrial capitalism and its impact on the world is clear – our exploitation of the resources, people, and other species are a direct result of our consumer based infinite growth model. Just a few of the problems we face are species extinction, climate change, ocean acidification, and a toxic carcinogen filled trash dump of a planet that reached population overshoot decades ago.
If the system was rational, we would begin planning to lower birth rates to decrease the world’s population, and voluntarily provide education, decent, dignified jobs, as well as birth control and contraception to women worldwide.
We live by money values, and think in money terminology. When we discuss healthcare the topic arises about how to pay for it before nearly anything else. The priority isn’t on saving lives but how to pay for things. Yes, how will we pay for healthcare when banks can create money on a computer through the magic of fractional reserve banking, which they often use to bail out their crony friends. The money isn’t real but the implications of restricting it from the populace are. Money is created out of thin air by the magic of the Federal Reserve, yet we have all heard our bosses, and the pricks in Washington complaining that “we don’t have enough money for that” when it comes to healthcare, improving schools, and humanitarian relief for the poorest parts of the world.
Again, if the system was rational, world poverty would be solved within a few short years. Money destined for weapons and “defense” could be used domestically as well as abroad to Africa, South Asia, and Latin America, and there is more than enough money (75 trillion is the annual world GDP, approximately 15 trillion in the US alone) to pay for a good home, clothing, and food for every family worldwide, with an all-renewable powered energy grid.
8) The future will be better
When Trump’s slogan make America great again was on the lips of every alt-right fascist, most of us stopped to ask, when was it great? The truth is that politicians have been promising something better since the inception of this country and better has never arrived.
There is always another expensive war to fight and another financial meltdown occurring on average every eight years. Wait, you might say, what about those sweet post-WWII growth years brought about by the New Deal? The sad truth is those years were only materially beneficial to white, middle-class men, who were highly sexist, racist, and complicit in incubating today’s consumer-driven Empty Society.
The post-WWII era was an aberration in our history and the result of having more jobs available than people, but as the country rapidly exploited its natural resources and reached the limits of linear growth while the population exploded the leverage that allowed people to have higher wages receded. Even though efficiency increased enormously, the people lost leverage to demand higher wages.
Without leverage held by the people capitalism will return to its status quo goal – exploit, and that’s just what it did. In the US, corporations grew richer and the people grew poorer starting from the mid 1970s to the present.
9) It’s Just Business
Employees devote years of their lives to companies and when they are let go they are told it’s nothing personal, it’s just business. This is how all bad news is delivered even when personal, it’s says we are cold-hearted organizations that adhere to a bottom line first and human needs second. So know when they say “it’s just business” what they are saying is understand we are sharks, and acting like a shark is just what we do.
This is also the logic behind defending war crimes and similar atrocities. Nations like the US claim they have a “responsibility to protect” civilians from terrorists. Then, when American bombs kill civilians (or their proxies use US-made weapons), they are referred to as “collateral damage”.
10) Financial markets & debt are necessary
The health of the entire economy is too often gauged by the stock markets. But the reality about financial markets is they are extraneous gambling machines designed to place downward pressure on companies to post good numbers to elevate share prices. These financial markets funnel capital to a smaller and smaller number of multinational corporations every year, and perpetuate non-linear economic growth (and therefore more pollutants, CO2, pesticides, strip mining, razing of forests) that is killing the planet.
Debt is the most fundamental lie in our economy. Money is only supposed to be a tool to move goods efficiently around a market, but for money itself to be a wealth engine is a Ponzi scheme. And we all know how that ends.

Why Money Lenders Still Rule The Farm Lands

Moin Qazi

While the government is set to forgive billions of dollars of loans of farmers, the actually distressed class among them will have no respite from their misery .They owe their debts to moneylenders whereas the government waiver applies only to formal credit.
Almost every farmer in India’s massive rural swathes is tethered, in one way or another, to the sahukar, the Indian variety of the moneylender, the ubiquitous, ravenous loan shark.
For centuries, moneylenders have monopolized rural Indian credit markets. Families have lost land, farmers have been asked to prostitute their wives to pay off debts, and, when all else has failed, they have tied the noose to end their misery.
An inescapable cycle of debt continues to grip rural India, particularly its farming class. Yet the public image of menacing debt collectors does not reflect the actual plight of India’s three million farmers. Moneylenders have been around for generations, but their business has boomed ever since India’s economic priorities shifted, with globalization, from agriculture to industry. The arrival of high-cost seeds and pesticides and the attraction of bumper harvests have added to the debts. In farm belts moneylenders operate under the guise of farm input sellers.
According to the All India Debt Investment Survey 2012, nearly 48%   farmers across the country   took loans   from informal sources such as moneylenders and landlords. The number had risen from 36% in 1991 and 43% in 2001. Moneylenders provided 69.7% of total rural credit in 1951. This  fell to 16.9% in 1981 before climbing up again. .The latest survey shows that among farmers who owned land parcels smaller than 0.1 hectares, 85% had pending loans from such informal finance sources.
It was expected that in socialist India banks would become an extremely popular port of call for clients seeking loans. In fact, these financial institutions recorded a surge in the social banking era of the 1970s . The expansion of bank branches in rural areas was particularly noteworthy. The figure rose from 8,261 in 1969 to a whopping 65,521 in 2000. The share of households accessing institutional credit rose by 32 percentage points to 61.2%.between  1971 and 1981.
While these small farmers pay exorbitant interest ,affluent famers get subsidized credit .The  government’s interest subvention (subsidy) scheme for farmers  provides  credit at subsidized interest rate of 7 per cent and for prompt re-payers at 4 per cent .
A current of dread runs through the country’s suicide-ravaged farmlands as their debts pass from husband to widow, from father to children. Most villages are locked into a bond with village moneylenders — an intimate bond, and sometimes a menacing one. Popular cinema and classic literature tell many pathos-filled narratives of India’s poor caught in that karmic cycle of poverty. Those stories inevitably end in tragedy.
Farmers who fall into the moneylending trap find themselves locked in a white-knuckle gamble, juggling ever-larger loans at usurious interest rates, in the hope that someday a bumper harvest will allow them to clear their debts — so they can take out new ones. This pattern has left a trail of human wreckage.
With institutional   credit drying up for farmers , local sharks  have taken  the place of banks.  They  charge an arm and a leg and  are creating a debt-trap for the farmers who rely on crop success –and prayers –for loan repayments. But a suicide does not absolve the rest of the family from paying back a loan. Unlike a bank loan which is squared by the government’s waiver package, the moneylender’s loan has to be atoned by the distraught family.
Farmers borrow loans from moneylenders at insane rates of interest. The peasants hope for a better yield in times to come, but this never happens, and they find themselves in a debt trap. Unable to pay the interest, let alone the principal, they borrow more get onto a treadmill   recklessly driven by the cruel money-lenders, who are no better than sharks. Shylock demanded only a pound of flesh. But the moneylenders bay for blood.  Crushing debts are pushing farmers into the darkest of pits.
Farming distress has attracted a  class of neo-moneylenders .Anyone with some disposable cash — from shopkeepers, the inputs dealers, government officials, and policemen to village teachers — now lends in the hope of making a killing. They are willing to extend credit, but at highly extortionate rates – sometimes exceeding 50 percent, which keeps borrowers in lifelong penury.
A current of dread runs through the country’s suicide-ravaged farmlands as their debts pass from husband to widow, from father to children. Most villages are locked into a bond with village moneylenders — an intimate bond, and sometimes a menacing one. Popular cinema and classic literature tell many pathos-filled narratives of India’s poor caught in that karmic cycle of poverty. Those stories inevitably end in tragedy.
Farmers who fall into the moneylending trap find themselves locked in a white-knuckle gamble, juggling ever-larger loans at usurious interest rates, in the hope that someday a bumper harvest will allow them to clear their debts — so they can take out new ones. But there seems no sign of the rainbow   as farmer continue to chase this vain chimera .This mirage has locked them into a usurious spiral. This pattern has left a trail of human wreckage.
The authors of a landmark study of the system of credit and household indebtedness published by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in the early 1950s, the All-India Rural Credit Survey, scrutinized the role and operations of the moneylender, who then enjoyed a dominant position as a source of finance. They did so on the premise that, in India, agricultural credit presented a “twofold problem of inadequacy and unsuitability.”
They envisaged only a minor place for him in their proposed solution, which took the form of a system of cooperatives covering all villages: “The moneylender can be allotted no part in the scheme [of cooperatives] … It would be a complete reversal of the policies we have been advocating … when the whole object of … that structure is to provide a positive institutional alternative to the moneylender himself, something which will compete with him, remove him from the forefront and put him in his place.”
The authors of the Survey did not, of course, lay out a formal model of India’s rural credit system as it then existed, nor did they provide a formal analysis of the effects of introducing a system of cooperatives upon its workings. The authors were strongly convinced that the moneylender possessed considerable market power, the exercise of which was made very profitable by the peasants’ pressing needs.
Even after  legions of committees and reports that have outlined ways of replacing moneylenders through stepping up institutional credit, the moneylender still remains the backbone of the rural financial system. It is a bitter truth which we have to swallow.

Future Shock: Imagining India

Colin Todhunter

What might a future India look like? If current policies continue, it could mean dozens of mega-cities with up to 40 million inhabitants and just two to three hundred million (perhaps 15-20% of the population) left in an emptied-out countryside. It could also mean hundreds of millions of former rural dwellers without any work and thus anywhere decent to live in these cities.
And what about the countryside? Given the trajectory the country seems to be on, it does not take much to imagine vast swathes of chemically-drenched monocrop fields containing genetically modified plants or soils rapidly turning into a chemical cocktail of proprietary biocides, dirt and dust.
Thanks to the model of agriculture being supported and advocated by neoliberal ideologues under the banner of ‘growth’, it also does not take much to imagine a state of near-permanent droughtspiralling rates of illness throughout the population due to bad diets, denutrified food and agrochemical poisoning.
Monsanto-Bayer and other transnational corporations will decide on what is to be eaten and how it is to be produced and processed. From seed to field to plate, the corporate take-over of the food and agriculture chain will be complete. You can forget any notion of food sovereignty. The existing productive system based on livelihood-sustaining smallholder agriculture and small-scale food processing will be all but a memory as those remaining in the sector will be squeezed, working on contracts for market-dominating global seed and agrochemical suppliers, distributors and retail concerns. Independent agricultural producers and village level processors will have long been forced out of the system.
Industrial agriculture will be the norm (with all the social, environmental and health devastation and externalised costs that the models brings with it).
Since the 1990s, India seems to have decided to hitch a ride to the future by tying itself to a system of neoliberal globalisation. An unsustainablecrisis-ridden system that fuels national debt and relies on hand-outs (demonetisation) for banks and corporations. A system based on a credit/debt-based consumer economy, financial speculation, derivatives and bubbles, with nations no longer able to carry out their own policies, tied down by undemocratic trade deals, beholden to rigged World Trade Organization rules and following a path prescribed by the World Bank, regardless of any democratic will of the people. A system whereby governments are paralysed to act as both eyes are firmly fixed on ‘market confidence’ and fearful of scaring away companies.
In a future India, international corporations will have long destroyed any real notion of indigenous self-sufficiency, having made a mockery of long-forgotten sound bites about ‘make in India’. People might eventually ask, how did India let this happen to itself?
We do not have to move forward 50 years to look back to see what happened. We already have the answer to why the world has taken a wrong turn.
Economist Dani Rodrik notes how under the Bretton Woods regime nations put restrictions on the flow of capital both inwards and outwards, so that domestic firms and banks could not borrow from banks elsewhere or from international capital markets. They would ask for permission or they would not be permitted. Domestic corporations or banks could not put their money in other countries. They couldn’t simply take the money out. Domestic financial markets were segmented from international or financial markets elsewhere. Governments could run their own macroeconomic policy without being truly encumbered by monetary or fiscal policies elsewhere.
Rodrik argues that this meant governments could also have their own tax policies and own industrial policies without having to worry that capital and international capital would leave. It meant you didn’t have to try to seek market confidence for every policy or worry that if you didn’t have market confidence, capital would flee. There were also restrictions on domestic residents trading on foreign currencies.
However, the dismantling of Bretton Woods and the deregulation of international capital movement (financial liberalisation) has led to the greater incidence of financial crises (including sovereign debt) as well as their severity.
Across the world, ordinary people are reacting to the outcome of neoliberalism. From Greece to the US, people have taken to the streets to protest. In the UK, Jeremy Corbyn has tapped into the popular sentiment that enough is enough. In India, farmers are protesting on the streets.
But what can be done to prevent a future full-fledged neoliberal dystopia taking hold in India?
The authors of this piece in India’s Economic & Political Weekly argue that in agriculture long-term measures could include land reforms and correcting rigged trade that is against the cultivating class. They add:
“Far-sighted and sustained policy initiatives to provide farmers dignified livelihoods are required. In an economy driven by jobless growth, compulsive migration to cities is often a case of distress transhumance. These migrants then become the new “serfs” of the informal services and construction sector, while the existing rural and agrarian problems remain unresolved.”
If such initiatives are not forthcoming, India should look to Mexico to see what is in store. Aside from destroying the nation’s health and home-grown food supply chain, ‘free’ trade under NAFTA allowed subsidised US corn to be dumped in the country, fuelled unemployment and transformed a former productive peasantry into a problematic group.
To avoid similar outcomes, India must delink from capitalist globalisation through capital controls, manage foreign trade to suit its own interests and expand domestic production, which it can achieve by protecting and encouraging indigenous small producers, including smallholder farmers. By encouraging localisation, self-sufficiency and investing in these types of producers, meaningful work can be generated for the majority. The exact opposite of the globalisation agenda (tens of millions of livelihoods are in danger as foreign corporations move in).
Despite the state’s neglect of agriculture, hundreds of millions of people still find sustenance from farming in India. Instead of driving farmers away to the cities, an approach to development must begin by recognising the situation, skills and knowledge already possessed within the agriculture sector. It should not demand that farmers mortgage their lives and wait for decades for jobs that may never arrive. It should not listen to neoliberal dogmatists  whose only role is to seek to justify corporate plunder.